In the OP I addressed the question, "Is education important?" I established this around the views of Sir Ken Robinson. In my opinion, then and now, they're not views that should be adopted universally. There are, in fact, good ideas in there. In my eyes, though, the central criticism of "industrial schools" is both the most important point he makes and also the most flawed. His replacement system is, in my opinion, an advanced form of streaming where it is absolutely integral to the system. For that reason, I think the latest round of PISA tests are a strong critique of his position.
Search this key findings PDF for "stratification" to read for yourself what I base this on. I have faith in the NZ school system... I am a particularly strong believer of NCEA and lean towards supporting National Standards (about which I am less informed than NCEA). It does have problems though and one of them is unfair criticisms of NCEA, which tends to worsen the attitudes of students (who are aware of the criticisms) to it (providing fuel for the critics). The PISA results were disappointing not because of the ranking slide but because of the point result decrease. This could be explained by thicker students and some of the defences provided by Hekia Parata probably do hold water in some respects at least (for example, a new curriculum).
This faith in the system is why I don't like the idea of partnership/charter schools (apart from their very mixed performance internationally) but it is also why I don't think changing how we do things is the answer to NZ's PISA problems. Setting aside the question of just how comparable the results are (4000+ students here versus 6000+ in the considerably larger US, for example) and other quibbles with PISA, that the sampling shows a decrease in our scores relative to each other? Yeah, that's something to work on. However, we still have large proportions of high achievers. What we need to do is work on the inequities and reduce that 23% below figure. The decile funding model is good but not enough. The gaps that exist in NCEA, Scholarship and PISA between the genders are secondary to this and probably would improve. What this really entails though, will have to wait for the next post.
As I mentioned earlier unfair criticisms of NCEA are a problem. The Wikipedia article has had problems with the defences and criticisms being uncited as an illustration. Searching NCEA or going on the NCEA Memes Facebook pages will show you these criticisms. But, they are unfair and I knew that these PISA results were always going to bring more out of the woodwork.
The following is a defence of NCEA relevant to comments by one "Nina Neveryoumind", who, in my opinion, is not very aware of what NCEA actually is.NCEA is completely irrelevant to both PISA (students are at most not even half way through year eleven and many would be year ten) and also to curriculum... it's an assessment structure. In terms of motivation, that is entirely your son's problem. If he cannot be bothered to do better than an A now, what makes you think he'll feel like doing better than a C? It does not follow.
NCEA, as written above, does do this. Most standards are worth 4 credits with some variation (I've had 2, 3, 5 and 6 credit standards) in that number. The credits somewhat reflect the amount of work that has to go in. However, every standard is based around a single idea (demonstrating understanding of biological ideas relating to genetic variation being an example)... particularly since the realignment. This will mean, usually, being able to showa numb...er of different skills and concepts as being understood.
A straight percentage method is deeply flawed. If you look at one of your son's external maths exams you will see that some questions get marked with a u, r or t (except probably not, because the t is the excellence bit and you say he only bothers with As). The point is that these questions require candidates to use skills above and beyond what is necessary to pass. Getting a set percentage like 70% of the test right doesn't actually reflect a candidate's ability to do higher level problems.
Really, your complaints are far too grounded in the specific case of your son and his teachers and are of limited use in evaluating NCEA as a whole. That said, the number of credits for an endorsement should be raised to 60. The reason being that is much more difficult to obtain from internals alone than 50 and there are actually students who stop trying as soon as they get to 50.
The interesting thing about this PISA data is that it is extremely critical of "stratification". In terms of what you wrote, that would be repeating stuff that they've already done.
The rankings drop is because other countries (like, say Germany) have improved. This year is just another in a pattern of decreasing performance points wise. The annulised decrease is at least -1.5 across the board (maths at -2.5). That's problematic but the reports do show the sort of things that reformers have found that worked. The main thing though is to work on the 23% or so of students who are below PISA's level two... that's the problem with our ranking falls. We still have above OECD average proportions of high achievers.
This is also a defence of NCEA, this time relevant to comments by Katherine Hanna, who is far more aware. However, I do think that her remarks, particularly regarding the university report, are unfair. It is not so focused on PISA like the above, which really demonstrates just how willing people are to take pot shots (although there is definite substance here). Like the above, following the link and finding the remarks in question would provide crucial context (although this bit is probably more independent).
NCEA is also irrelevant. These students are too young for that but, currently, too old to have experienced National Standards.
That university thing was nonsensical. They were either complaining about students who hadn't done the correct subjects (such as calculus instead of stats) and struggled at uni because they had chosen poorly and the uni was idiotic enough to let them do the subject at their end.... or they were complaining about mediocre (achieved level) students struggling with the higher level university courses. If the rank scores used at Auckland were more widespread this would not have happened as it is impossible to reach more than 160 or just achieveds... that's not enough for a lot of degree programmes.
The other complaints are about curriculum rather than assessment (i.e. not relevant to NCEA). The report has also been criticised for attributing work ethic to the system.
